Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 13:21:32 GMT
No I am saying he struggled because he had to reduce the playing budget and kept getting told to reduce it further. He had no support from the boardroom plus look at what he inherited. you assume there will be no playing budget, all I will say is lets se what happens before we jump to allsorts of hypothetical conclusions Look what he inherited? Yep he spent a load of money paying off players he couldn't get on with and brought a new lot in. The lot he would inherit now are clearly sub standard money will be needed to replace this lot. Where's the money going to come from? you will have to wait and see like the rest of us but one thing for sure, there is no money now and some horrible stuff heading our way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 13:46:29 GMT
There has been a bit of debate about Lowe and it's not really floating my boat, let's hear what H and H have to offer. I know their names but don't really know what they've achieved. So Gannon is your choice not because you think he's the best possible man availible, but because of you own admission of ignorance? Well it's one way of paraphrasing what I keep saying but it's not how I would have put it, it's how I make decisions. I wouldn't rule Gannon out just because someone says we need to move on, that would be completely stupid. Never rule anything out, consider all the options and the case for each option. At the same time ignore the empty vessels shouting the loudest without bringing anything constructive to the table and then make a decision but always leave the option open to revise the decision should some new facts come to light which prove the original decision incorrect. thats how I do it anyway and I've done alright so far, how do you make decisions? I'm always open to suggestions but so far we've had three and one looks a bit ropey and the other two haven't even been backed up with anything to suggest they would be better than Lordy. The claims Gannon was crap in his second spell don't stack up unless you are saying he was crap in the first spell, had the Gannon naysayers (and there were plenty) had the way the first time round we would never have the success that followed those first 25 games of his second season. The stats are so similar up to that point in both of his spells as manager it is staggering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 14:24:25 GMT
So Gannon is your choice not because you think he's the best possible man availible, but because of you own admission of ignorance? Well it's one way of paraphrasing what I keep saying but it's not how I would have put it, it's how I make decisions. I wouldn't rule Gannon out just because someone says we need to move on, that would be completely stupid. Never rule anything out, consider all the options and the case for each option. At the same time ignore the empty vessels shouting the loudest without bringing anything constructive to the table and then make a decision but always leave the option open to revise the decision should some new facts come to light which prove the original decision incorrect. thats how I do it anyway and I've done alright so far, how do you make decisions? I'm always open to suggestions but so far we've had three and one looks a bit ropey and the other two haven't even been backed up with anything to suggest they would be better than Lordy. The claims Gannon was crap in his second spell don't stack up unless you are saying he was crap in the first spell, had the Gannon naysayers (and there were plenty) had the way the first time round we would never have the success that followed those first 25 games of his second season. The stats are so similar up to that point in both of his spells as manager it is staggering. I'm not saying he was crap in his second spell, but we were in the relegation zone when he was axed after Mansfield wiping the floor with us just a few weeks after Hyde at home on the Boxing day had also done the same. I also recall plenty of complaints about the standard of football on offer and poor results to part-time sides and the calls for more experienced players to be signed which we know Gannon doesn't do. Also the persistance with under performers like Ormson, Tunnicliffe and Connor when the were awful game after game. It was clear after Snapes rant on Pure after the woking away game their was aggro between Gannon and the board..not just Snape/Gannon. Poor results and his contiuned selection of poor players, especially of his 'star' summer signing Tunnicliffe gave the board a excuse to pull the trigger. Gannon fell out with the board, like he did with the board in his first spell at the club (refusing to take calls from the Chairman for weeks on end is a fact) He well out with the board and Chairman at Motherwell, he fell out with everyone at Port Vale. Now, in the clubs darkest hour, when everyone needs to pulling together the last thing needed is someone with such a track record of falling outs and aggro IMO, just look how the mention of him returning has divided the supporters with everyone at each others throats That's what I've based and come to my decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 14:35:42 GMT
Well it's one way of paraphrasing what I keep saying but it's not how I would have put it, it's how I make decisions. I wouldn't rule Gannon out just because someone says we need to move on, that would be completely stupid. Never rule anything out, consider all the options and the case for each option. At the same time ignore the empty vessels shouting the loudest without bringing anything constructive to the table and then make a decision but always leave the option open to revise the decision should some new facts come to light which prove the original decision incorrect. thats how I do it anyway and I've done alright so far, how do you make decisions? I'm always open to suggestions but so far we've had three and one looks a bit ropey and the other two haven't even been backed up with anything to suggest they would be better than Lordy. The claims Gannon was crap in his second spell don't stack up unless you are saying he was crap in the first spell, had the Gannon naysayers (and there were plenty) had the way the first time round we would never have the success that followed those first 25 games of his second season. The stats are so similar up to that point in both of his spells as manager it is staggering. I'm not saying he was crap in his second spell, but we were in the relegation zone when he was axed after Mansfield wiping the floor with us just a few weeks after Hyde at home on the Boxing day had also done the same. I also recall plenty of complaints about the standard of football on offer and poor results to part-time sides and the calls for more experienced players to be signed which we know Gannon doesn't do. Also the persistance with under performers like Ormson, Tunnicliffe and Connor when the were awful game after game. It was clear after Snapes rant on Pure after the woking away game their was aggro between Gannon and the board..not just Snape/Gannon. Poor results and his contiuned selection of poor players, especially of his 'star' summer signing Tunnicliffe gave the board a excuse to pull the trigger. Gannon fell out with the board, like he did with the board in his first spell at the club (refusing to take calls from the Chairman for weeks on end is a fact) He well out with the board and Chairman at Motherwell, he fell out with everyone at Port Vale. Now, in the clubs darkest hour, when everyone needs to pulling together the last thing needed is someone with such a track record of falling outs and aggro IMO, just look how the mention of him returning has divided the supporters with everyone at each others throats That's what I've based and come to my decision. yes and Snape had given the social loafers the perfect scenario to get rid of the manager by publicly destroying any chance he had of managing the squad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 15:07:22 GMT
Well it's one way of paraphrasing what I keep saying but it's not how I would have put it, it's how I make decisions. I wouldn't rule Gannon out just because someone says we need to move on, that would be completely stupid. Never rule anything out, consider all the options and the case for each option. At the same time ignore the empty vessels shouting the loudest without bringing anything constructive to the table and then make a decision but always leave the option open to revise the decision should some new facts come to light which prove the original decision incorrect. thats how I do it anyway and I've done alright so far, how do you make decisions? I'm always open to suggestions but so far we've had three and one looks a bit ropey and the other two haven't even been backed up with anything to suggest they would be better than Lordy. The claims Gannon was crap in his second spell don't stack up unless you are saying he was crap in the first spell, had the Gannon naysayers (and there were plenty) had the way the first time round we would never have the success that followed those first 25 games of his second season. The stats are so similar up to that point in both of his spells as manager it is staggering. I'm not saying he was crap in his second spell, but we were in the relegation zone when he was axed after Mansfield wiping the floor with us just a few weeks after Hyde at home on the Boxing day had also done the same. I also recall plenty of complaints about the standard of football on offer and poor results to part-time sides and the calls for more experienced players to be signed which we know Gannon doesn't do. Also the persistance with under performers like Ormson, Tunnicliffe and Connor when the were awful game after game. It was clear after Snapes rant on Pure after the woking away game their was aggro between Gannon and the board..not just Snape/Gannon. Poor results and his contiuned selection of poor players, especially of his 'star' summer signing Tunnicliffe gave the board a excuse to pull the trigger. Gannon fell out with the board, like he did with the board in his first spell at the club (refusing to take calls from the Chairman for weeks on end is a fact) He well out with the board and Chairman at Motherwell, he fell out with everyone at Port Vale. Now, in the clubs darkest hour, when everyone needs to pulling together the last thing needed is someone with such a track record of falling outs and aggro IMO, just look how the mention of him returning has divided the supporters with everyone at each others throats That's what I've based and come to my decision. At that point in the season the league position isn't the most important thing is it, in theory a team could be bottom but only a few point from top. The reality we were only a few points behind the eventual champions despite a poor run of results. Mansfield wiped the floor with plenty of teams after they beat us, they picked up nearly 60 points from their last 23 games! On that basis several other managers should have also been sacked. We made up for Boxing Day a few days later didn't we? In my opinion we played the best football since admin that season, even when we lost to Wrexham we looked really good, add to that defeats to Macc and Southport by the odd own goal and individual mistakes those great performances could have resulted in another 9 points. We could have been ABOVE Mansfield the day before Gannon was sacked! We were well on the way to building a cracking you squad and we would have been play-off contenders in the league above this season without a doubt. I've already said Gannon made mistakes, about the same number as he did the first time around. Tunniclife was a disaster and probably the main reason we struggled. Gannon knew that, he even said it was his more experienced players who were making mistakes but he no other options at the time.
I'm convinced he kept picking Ormson in the hope he would regain his form and another club would come in for him, that was a gamble which didn't come off and he replaced Ormson with O'Donnell but it was too late. Connor was player of the season and a huge success the season before, quite why his form dipped is a mystery, I genuinely think he was trying too hard which is a characteristic I admire. I think Gannon felt the same but he did drop eventually. You are right we need everyone pulling together but it's no use having everyone pulling together towards the bottom is it? As as things stand Lordy has steadied the ship despite the idiots running the show. If my gut feeling is right and there is a big change coming then we will probably see a change of manager, not because Lordy is no good but because the new people will probably want their own man. That's what usually happens anyway. If that happens I've put my case while at the same time asked for alternatives. The alternatives are, to say the least, not compelling are they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 15:14:59 GMT
My fundamental issue with the 'Gannon is the only way' attitude is that you still aren't dealing with concerns over the Port Vale / Motherwell problem though?
Trying to put things as neutrally as possible...
You've a manager who had great success on a reasonable budget 5/6 years ago before off field problems had an effect, and he was unfairly sacked (I'll be generous, and assume he wasn't aware of the degree of overspending that was going on, although I know others disagree)
Since then, he has worked at another club for 6 months, before falling out with the senior players and board, and then being sacked.
He then worked at another club on a caretaker basis, taking over a club in the relegation zone, and leaving them in a similar position, albeit with improved performances, before not taking the job when it was offered.
He then had a couple of years out, then lasted less than 2 months at a club, before falling out with everyone, and is now regarded as just about the worst manager in the history of this club.
After that, he went back to the club at which he'd had success, had a reasonable first season, albeit with a massive falling out with half the team after 2 weeks, before struggling with a much reduced budget and background of off field turmoil the next season.
Would you employ a man with that record?
Even more, would you say a man with that record is 'the only possible chance we have of improving?'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 15:27:35 GMT
I know even less about Scottish football (despite working from Glasgow airport since June this year) than I do about non-league football so all I can see is Motherwell being more or less where they were when he went there, no harm done.
Port Vale was a bit of a car crash.
Nobody has succeeded under the current regime at County (not being relegated is the best anyone has achieved) and the big problem he was faced with when he came in was the social loafers, they had to go didn't they? I think he went about it in the wrong way but I don't know how bad it was behind the scenes.
Anyway, who would you bring in and don't just say a name, big him up, make him sound like the best thing since sliced bread, pick out stats which show how good he is even if he actually wasn't that good, just bring something positive to the table.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Dec 8, 2013 15:49:04 GMT
After that, he went back to the club at which he'd had success, had a reasonable first season, albeit with a massive falling out with half the team after 2 weeks, before struggling with a much reduced budget and background of off field turmoil the next season. I'm glad he did fall out with those tossers. How many of them have gone on to prove Gannon wrong? I don't think any have, have they? They were clearly not arsed about playing for the club and were happy to pick up a wage. The majority of fans were saying so on marions at the time. So surely Gannon did the right thing in getting rid? charter posted something a while ago comparing the team from Jim's first game at Fleetwood to the line up against Mansfield. Tell me which of these teams would you rather have playing for us? Team against Fleetwood:M Halstead, E Holden, N Bounab, M Lynch, D O'Donnell, J Routledge, S McConville, S Sheridan (D Rowe, 60), M Paton, T Elliott, A German Team against Mansfield:R O'Donnell, J Fagbola, J Tunnicliffe, S Newton, A Halls (M Mainwaring), J Nolan (A Meaney), J Connor, A Kenyon, D Hattersley (T Collins), C Jennings, D Whitehead I think there's only Tunnicliffe now still playing at Conference North level, everyone else is at a higher level, with a couple a few leagues above us. How much did he spend putting that team together? It would have been next to nothing, as we've been potless for years. I have no doubt he'd do the same again, given the chance. And if he upsets some of the cranks currently playing for us? Good. Pull your socks up and start putting performances in or fxxx off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 16:25:07 GMT
On the social loafers, I'm not for one minute saying he wasn't correct to identify the problem.
As I've repeatedly said, my issue is entirely the way he went about it. He knew he'd be lumbered with quite a few of them on two year contracts. As such, he should have worked to get the best out of them, or failing at that, at least been capable of not completely alienating them, meaning we'd be able to move them on relatively easily, rather than have them hanging on for huge payouts. No problem at all with alienating the likes of Miles and Fraughan, who were crap and on short contracts, or even German who was incredibly raw, but with potential and again on a short contract, but alienating four or five on two year contracts he knew he'd be lumbered with was stupid and naive given the off field situation.
As to choosing between the two teams, they're both terrible! But since you ask, 5 from the first, 6 from the second.
O'Donnell, Halls, Newton, O'Donnell, Tunni, Kenyon, Routledge, Sheridan, Jennings, Elliott, German.
As I've said, I'm not convinced anyone would do a better job, given the off field problems (although if pushed, and asked yesterday, I'd have said Coleman, took a tiny team like Accy comfortably into the league with minimal backing, primarily through using young players, even managing to get them into the play-offs, before leaving for a bigger job at Rochdale (these things are relative!), where he did an ok job, and was sacked to make way for a previously very successful manager of theirs when he became available), I'm just equally convinced that anyone who says Jim Gannon is the only answer is asking entirely the wrong questions.
Essentially, we pretty much all agree we need stability. Equally, we pretty much all agree that Jim has a tendency to fall out with people. I just can't reconcile the two views at all.
The more general point is I'm placing far more weight on his non-County jobs than you seem to be, rather than considering his career as merely two spells at County, one successful and one screwed by off field problems.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Dec 8, 2013 17:29:15 GMT
Just to clear up one or two things about Jim's record since leaving us, Peterborough and Brighton offered him contracts, he left Motherwell because he refused to commit, people at those clubs could see his qualities. Port Vale was different and he was never going to win that one, it appeared at the time that Geoff Horsfield was popular with the players and when he went head to head with Jim he got the players on side and Jim didn't stand a chance. We all saw what he built here in his first spell but he didn't do it over night, in his second spell he did what he needed to to keep us up but the following year was about rebuilding and he wasn't allowed to complete the job. That's not me putting a spin on it but exactly how I see it, if I thought he wasn't the right man for the job there's no way I'd want him back but there seems to be a lot of rewriting history going on and that's unfair especially to someone who's served us so well.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Dec 8, 2013 17:37:29 GMT
Look at the manager positions he's had:
County Motherwell Posh Vale County
His first spell with us was an absolute success. He's talked about in the same breath as Danny Bergara and Dave Jones a lot of the time, and rightly so based on 2006-2009. I know virtually nothing about Scottish football so can't comment with any authority about his time in Scotland but I have heard mixed things. Some liked him, some disliked him. But I'd say his time there, in terms of league standings and on the pitch, was pretty neutral. He didn't make them world beaters, but he certainly didn't destroy them.
Peterborough offered him a three year deal, I think. I would argue it's safe to say that counts as a successful time as caretaker manager. Vale was disastrous for him, no doubt it. They were all set for promotion so he should have let them carry on for the remaining three months of the season, take them up and then make changes. He tried to do too much and paid the price.
His second spell at County clearly wasn't as good as his first. But, by your own admission, it was screwed by off field problems. He replaced a team of wasters and nobodies with a team who at least had promise. None of them were outstanding, but I'd say they were an improvement on what he inherited. Regarding your point that he should have been softer on the loafers, maybe. But he's the manager and he's in charge. If the players aren't pulling their weight, why shouldn't they be hung out to dry? I don't agree with the argument that we should have let them stay so we didn't have to pay out to get rid of them. I wouldn't want wasters like that near me at work, they bring the place down. I think he did right in cutting them out. And even if you don't agree with that point, you must agree that he did well to put together a promising team (even if they weren't performing every week) with virtually no budget, regardless of how the budget became so small.
Not really related to anything you've said, HH, but it amazes me how quick County fans are to paint Gannon as a villain because John Miles or Ryan Fraughan or some other nobody slags him off. How many of the ace players have had a go at him? I can't think of any. Rose certainly doesn't count as ace. He's undoubtedly a stubborn bloke who can rub people up the wrong way. But he's also capable of building teams from nothing. He doesn't tolerate slackers, and good on him. We've had enough people taking the piss out of our club in recent times. If he comes back in and upsets a few of our current players then he'll have my backing. We're languishing in the bottom half of regional football. They need to be told one or two things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 17:41:34 GMT
Exactly Vic! I gave up trying to get the point across, you can't debate with a bigoted mind that is not open to facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 17:59:30 GMT
facts like lasting barely 2 months at Port Vale, and taking a team that was nailed on for promotion into mid table perhaps?
I can accept you primarily basing your view of him on an excellent spell here five years ago, and if you take that in isolation, he is clearly a brilliant manager who should have gone onwards to greater things.
I struggle with the concept that because I'm taking things that have happened since 2009 into account means I'm a bigoted, Snape loving Jim hater?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Dec 8, 2013 18:10:19 GMT
facts like lasting barely 2 months at Port Vale, and taking a team that was nailed on for promotion into mid table perhaps? I can accept you primarily basing your view of him on an excellent spell here five years ago, and if you take that in isolation, he is clearly a brilliant manager who should have gone onwards to greater things. I struggle with the concept that because I'm taking things that have happened since 2009 into account means I'm a bigoted, Snape loving Jim hater? He's only had one truly bad spell as a manager though. That aside, he's got a decent record.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 18:31:39 GMT
Jim's record
Dundalk - don't know enough about Ireland to comment, but it must have been decent enough to get the job with us - success
Stockport 1 - brilliant - excellent success
Motherwell - started promisingly, before falling out with everyone - 50/50, towards failure if anything
Peterborough - came into a difficult position, improved the team well enough to be offered the job, but didn't actually take it - 50/50 towards success if anything
Port Vale - utter disaster - massive failure
Stockport 2 - off field turmoil made job almost impossible (as with every other manager since 2008) - I'd say 50/50 on the side of failure, but it's fair to strike this from the record given the circumstances.
Overall, one massive success, one massive failure, two jobs (three if you include Ireland) where he wasn't really in place long enough to judge and us second time around, which if you take in pure isolation, was about as successful as the reign of Paul Simpson.
Put this another way, if you were a Wrexham fan and they'd sacked Morrell (to take a similar size club in a similar area and similar financial straits to us), would you even have JG on your shortlist, much less say 'he's the only possible option who could improve things for us'?
(in answer to the earlier question, as well as Rose, Owen, Griffin & Poole have also been less than complimentary about him in the past (possibly McSweeney as well, can't really remember?). Obviously none of them are world beaters, but equally, they've always always given the impression of being model professionals, and as such the very sort of people who wouldn't tend to slag off a manager in public for minor slights like being dropped etc.)
|
|